[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47109-47120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11842]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 302, 303, and 304

RIN 0970-AD00


Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the 
Child Support Program

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS or the Department).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In an effort to make the child support program more effective, 
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to allow Federal 
financial participation (FFP) for certain optional and nonduplicative 
employment and training services for eligible noncustodial parents in 
the child support program. The proposed rule will permit states, at 
their discretion, to use FFP to provide any or all of the following 
services: job search assistance; job readiness training; job 
development and job placement services; skills assessments; job 
retention services; work supports; and occupational training and other 
skills training directly related to employment.

DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments on this NPRM 
received on or before July 30, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or 
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number], by one of the following 
methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Written comments may be submitted to: Office of 
Child Support Services, Attention: Director of Policy and Training, 330 
C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received 
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including 
any personal information provided.
    Docket: Go to the Federal Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov for access to the rulemaking docket, including any 
background documents and the plain-language summary of the proposed 
rule of not more than 100 words in length required by the Providing 
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Edinger, Program Specialist, OCSS 
Division of Regional Operations, at mail to: [email protected] or 
(303) 844-1213. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Submission of Comments

    Comments should be specific, address issues raised by the proposed 
rule, and explain reasons for any objections or recommended changes. 
Additionally, we will be interested in comments that indicate agreement 
with the proposal. We will not acknowledge receipt of the comments we 
receive. However, we will review and consider all comments that are 
relevant and received during the comment period. We will respond to 
these comments in the preamble to the final rule.

Statutory Authority

    This NPRM is published under the authority granted to the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act 
(the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the 
Secretary to publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, as may 
be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with 
which the Secretary is responsible under the Act. This NPRM is also 
authorized by section 452(a)(1) of the Act, which states that the 
Secretary's designee ``shall establish such standards for State 
programs for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and 
obtaining child support . . . as he determines to be necessary to 
assure that such programs will be effective.''
    Section 454 of the Act establishes requirements that states must 
include in their title IV-D State plans, the costs of which are 
eligible for FFP under section 455 of the Act. Section 454(13) of the 
Act requires the State plan to ``provide that the State will comply 
with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary determines 
to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program for 
locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining 
support orders, and collecting support payments . . . .'' The 
rulemaking is also consistent with section 451, which authorizes 
federal funding to states for enforcing support obligations, obtaining 
child support payments, and assuring that assistance in obtaining 
support is available to all children.

Background

    In 1975, Congress established the child support program under title 
IV-D of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 93-647). The child support 
program is administered at the federal level by the Office of Child 
Support Services (OCSS) and functions in 54 states and territories and 
over 60 tribes. When the child support program began, its primary focus 
was collecting child support to recover welfare costs, but that has 
changed significantly over time. Today, the program is focused on 
delivering family-centered child support services that improve the 
long-term financial and emotional support of children, by collecting 
and facilitating consistent child support payments based on the 
noncustodial parents' ability to pay. This evolution has been guided by 
the changing needs of families, by federal legislation, and by research 
and data that contribute to OCSS's understanding of the standards and 
requirements necessary to establish an effective child support program.
    Families and work have fundamentally changed since 1975. The 
percent of children who need child support services has increased and 
the ability of noncustodial parents to pay child support has declined. 
Families are more likely to divorce or never marry, increasing the 
likelihood that children will spend time apart from one of their 
parents. In 2021, 40 percent of births were to unmarried women, up from 
14 percent in 1975.\1\ In FY 2022, the child support program served one 
in five children in the United States, or 12.8

[[Page 47110]]

million children.\2\ The labor market has been particularly difficult 
for less-educated men during this period, leaving them with 
significantly fewer job opportunities and less income than before. In 
2015, the real hourly earnings for men 25-54 years old with only a high 
school degree was 18 percent lower than it was in 1973.\3\ As of 2018, 
over 70 percent of nonresident parents had not attended college.\4\ In 
2017, more than one-third of nonresident parents (3.4 million) lived in 
families with incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty 
thresholds and 43 percent did not work full-time, year-round.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National 
Center for Health Statistics, ``Nonmarital Childbearing in the 
United States, 1940-99,'' National Vital Statistics Reports, 48: 16 
(October 18, 2000), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. Osterman, Michelle J.K., Brady E. Hamilton, 
Joyce A. Martin, Anne K. Driscoll, and Claudia P. Valenzuela, 
``Births: Final Data for 2021,'' National Vital Statistics Reports, 
72: 1 (January 31, 2023), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Services, ``2022 
Child Support: More Money for Families,'' undated, available at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/2022_infographic_national.pdf.
    \3\ Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound, ``The Declining Labor 
Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men,'' Journal of Economic 
Perspectives, 33: 2 (2019), available at https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.2.163.
    \4\ Sanders, Patrick, ``Demographic and Socioeconomic 
Characteristics of Nonresident Parents,'' Washington, DC: 
Congressional Research Service, R46942 (October 2021) available at 
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942. This report 
uses the term ``nonresident parent'' rather than noncustodial 
parent. It defines a nonresident parent as a person 15 years or 
older who does not reside for a majority of nights in the same 
household as one or more of his or her biological, adopted, or 
stepchildren under age 21. This definition is very similar to the 
definition of a noncustodial parent used by the child support 
program. For purposes of the child support program, a noncustodial 
parent is a parent who does not have primary care, custody, or 
control of the child, and who may have an obligation to pay child 
support (See Office of Child Support Services, Glossary of Common 
Terms available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N).
    \5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other societal changes have also affected the child support 
program, including greatly elevated incarceration rates. Incarceration 
rates increased dramatically between 1980 and 2008 and have since 
declined, but the percent of the U.S. population incarcerated in 2020 
was more than double the figure in 1980.\6\ It is estimated that 6 
percent of all children in the United States have a parent who was ever 
incarcerated.\7\ Having an incarceration record is a barrier to 
employment that diminishes earnings potential, reducing a parent's 
ability to work and pay child support.\8\ Sixty-five percent of 
noncustodial parents who enrolled in a recently completed national 
demonstration of child support-led employment and training programs 
reported that they had been previously incarcerated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Kluckow, Rich and Zhen Zeng ``Correctional Populations in 
the United States, 2020--Statistical Tables'' (March 2022), Lauren 
E. Glaze, ``Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010'' 
(December 2011), and Louis W. Jankowski, Louis W., ``Correctional 
Populations in the United States, 1990'' (July 1992), U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, all available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States. Historical U.S. population data available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html.
    \7\ The Annie E. Casey Foundation, ``Children Who Had a Parent 
Who Was Ever Incarcerated by Race and Ethnicity in United States'' 
(May 2023) available at https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/9734-children-who-had-a-parent-who-was-ever-incarcerated-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/2043,1769,1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/18995,18996.
    \8\ Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, & Steve Redburn, (Eds.) The 
Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and 
Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, (2014), 
available at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes.
    \9\ Maria Cancian, Maria, Angela Guarin, Leslie Hodges, and 
Daniel R. Meyer, ``Characteristics of Participants in the Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) 
Evaluation,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty 
(December 2019), Appendix Table C3, available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-Final-Characteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019-Compliant.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, Pub. L. 104-193), which 
included significant changes to the child support program.\10\ These 
changes included the introduction of a new ``family first'' 
distribution policy, which required that former assistance families 
receive certain child support arrearage payments collected by the state 
before the state and Federal governments retained their share of 
collections.\11\ PRWORA also amended the Social Security Act to add 
work requirements for noncustodial parents owing past-due child support 
for a child receiving assistance under the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families (TANF) program. Specifically, section 466(a)(15) of the 
Act requires states to have laws and procedures under which the state 
has the authority to issue an order requiring an individual to 
participate in work activities, as defined by section 407(d).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Legler, Paul, The Coming Revolution in Child Support 
Policy: Implications of the 1996 Welfare Act Family Law Quarterly, 
Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall 1996), pp. 519-563, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/25740093.
    \11\ Congressional Research Service, ``The Child Support 
Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950,'' 
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R47630 (July 2023) 
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47630.
    \12\ In section 407(d) of the Social Security Act, work 
activities are defined as: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2) 
subsidized private sector employment; (3) subsidized public sector 
employment; (4) work experience (including work associated with the 
refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient private 
sector employment is not available; (5) on-the-job training; (6) job 
search and job readiness assistance; (7) community service programs; 
(8) vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months with 
respect to any individual); (9) job skills training directly related 
to employment; (10) education directly related to employment, in the 
case of a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or a 
certificate of high school equivalency; (11) satisfactory attendance 
at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate 
of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not 
completed secondary school or received such a certificate; and (12) 
the provision of child care services to an individual who is 
participating in a community service program. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, Congress authorized a total of $3 billion for the Welfare-
to-Work (WtW) Grants program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
(Pub. L. 105-33). Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, these 
grants were intended to help long-term welfare recipients and 
noncustodial parents of children whose custodial parents met certain 
criteria find and keep good jobs.\13\ Congress appropriated funds for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and grantees were allowed five years to 
spend their funds, which ended in 2004. OCSS encouraged IV-D and IV-A 
agencies to work together to support WtW programs and encouraged states 
to make ``special efforts to inform potentially eligible noncustodial 
parents about the existence and availability of WtW services.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Training and Employment 
Guidance Letter No. 15-01, General Program Questions,'' Reissued 
March 22, 2002, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf.
    \14\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support 
Services, AT-00-08, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questions-and-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OCSS issued policy guidance, in PIQ 98-03 and AT 00-
08, to respond to state inquiries about the availability of FFP under 
title IV-D for work activities for noncustodial parents. OCSS concluded 
that because section 466(a)(15) of the Act did not require that IV-D 
programs establish, provide, or administer work activity programs for 
noncustodial parents, the costs of these activities could not be 
attributed to the IV-D program. In guidance, OCSS explained that FFP 
was available ``for the identification and referral of unemployed 
noncustodial parents to job training, coordination with courts 
regarding compliance with court orders, tracking participation, and 
data collection,'' but was not available for ``training and services 
provided by entities other than the IV-D agency.'' \15\ OCSS viewed the 
determination of

[[Page 47111]]

eligibility for and cost of participation in WtW programs as ``the 
responsibilities of the WtW grantees, not the courts or the IV-D 
agency.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Ibid.
    \16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification

    The current proposal to allow FFP for employment and training 
services for noncustodial parents would supersede OCSS's prior 
guidance. In the late 1990s, OCSS did not have the benefit of rigorous 
evidence and other data that now show that providing employment and 
training services to noncustodial parents can make a child support 
program more effective in collecting child support payments. In the 
decades that followed OCSS's policy guidance of 1998 and 2000, national 
demonstrations and state-based programs have examined the effectiveness 
of providing employment and training services to unemployed and 
underemployed noncustodial parents and found positive outcomes in 
employment rates, earnings, child support payment rates, the amount of 
child support paid, and payment regularity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox, ``The Challenge of 
Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons 
From Parents' Fair Share,'' New York: MDRC (2001), available at 
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_529.pdf.
    Perez-Johnson, Irma, Jacqueline Kauff, Alan Hershey, ``Giving 
Noncustodial Parents Options: Employment and Child Support Outcomes 
of the SHARE Program,'' Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research 
(October 2003), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/39936/report.pdf. Pearson, Jessica, 
Nancy Thoennes, Lanae Davis, David Price, Jane Venohr and Tracy 
Griffith, ``OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client 
Characteristics and Program Outcomes,'' Denver, CO: Center for 
Policy Research and Policy Studies Inc. (September 2003), available 
at https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsible-fatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-and-program-outcomes. Martinson, Karin, 
Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, Burt S. Barnow, and 
John Trutko, ``Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects: 
Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,'' Washington, DC: 
The Urban Institute (September 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. Schroeder, Daniel 
and Nicholas Doughty, ``Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program 
Impact Analysis,'' Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public 
Affairs, University of Texas (September 2009), available at https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf. Lippold, Kye, Austin Nichols, and 
Elaine Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers: 
Final Impact Report for the Pilot Employment Programs,'' Washington, 
DC: Urban Institute (October 2011), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-Pilot-Employment-Programs.PDF. Born, Catherine E., Pamela 
Caudill Ovwigho, and Correne Saunders, ``The Noncustodial Parent 
Employment Program: Employment and Payment Outcomes,'' Baltimore, 
MD: Family Welfare Research and Training Group, University of 
Maryland, School of Social Work (April 2011), available at https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-support-research/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&. Pearson, Jessica, Lanae Davis and Jane 
Venohr, ``Parents to Work! Program Outcomes and Economic Impacts,'' 
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (February 2011), available at 
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ParentsToWork.pdf. Davis, Lanae, Jessica Pearson, and Nancy 
Thoennes. ``Evaluation of the Tennessee Parent Support Program,'' 
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (November 2013), available at 
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParentSupportProgram.pdf. Sorensen, Elaine, 
``What We Learned from Recent Federal Evaluations of Programs 
Serving Disadvantaged Noncustodial Parents.'' Washington, DC: Office 
of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children 
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (November 
2020), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20Employment%20Brief_508.pdf. Wasserman, 
Kyla, Lily Freedman, Zaina Rodney, and Caroline Schultz, 
``Connecting Parents to Occupational Training: A Partnership Between 
Child Support Agencies and Local Service Providers,'' New York: MDRC 
(April 2021), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_Report_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research shows that reliable child support depends on the economic 
stability of noncustodial parents. For example, in Wisconsin, 
noncustodial fathers who paid at least 90 percent of their order during 
the first year after it was established were 9 times as likely to work 
all four quarters that year than those who paid nothing.\18\ 
Nationally, over 70 percent of child support collections are made 
through wage withholding by employers.\19\ Noncustodial parents with 
irregular employment are particularly unlikely to pay the full amount 
of their child support order. As a result, substantial arrears accrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Cancian, Maria, Yoona Kim, and Daniel R. Meyer, ``Who Is 
Not Paying Child Support?'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on 
Poverty (2021), available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022-T2.pdf.
    \19\ DCL 23-06, OCSS Preliminary FY 2022 Data Report and Tables, 
available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unpublished data available to OCSS show that 78 percent of the $114 
billion in child support arrears that was owed in FY 2022 was owed by 
parents who had annual reported incomes below $20,000, which is 
consistent with earlier published research that examined child support 
debt in nine states and found a similar result.\20\ Studies have also 
shown that owing large amounts of child support arrears among low-
income noncustodial parents can be counterproductive to the goals of 
the child support program as it pushes these parents further away from 
the formal labor market, reduces their child support payments, and 
distances them from their children.\21\ Parents who owe large amounts 
of arrears can be discouraged from working in jobs that withhold income 
for child support, especially if they can easily turn to other means of 
earning money where child support is not typically withheld, such as 
self-employment or working off the books.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The unpublished data is based on a random sample of 
noncustodial parents who owed arrears in the OCSS Debtor File as of 
April 2022, which was matched to data from the National Directory of 
New Hires. Reported income is the amount of quarterly earnings and 
unemployment insurance reported for the noncustodial parent in the 
National Directory of New Hires for FY 2021. The $113.4 billion 
figure is from the Office of Child Support Services FY 2022 
Preliminary Data Tables, Table P-98 available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables. Sorensen, Elaine, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, 
``Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the 
Nation,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (2007), available at 
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF.
    \21\ Miller, Daniel P. and Ronald B. Mincy. ``Falling Further 
Behind? Child Support Arrears and Fathers' Labor Force 
Participation,'' Social Service Review 86:4 (2012), available at 
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761. Cancian, 
Maria, Carolyn Heinrich, and Yiyoon Chung, ``Discouraging 
Disadvantaged Fathers' Employment: An Unintended Consequence of 
Policies Designed to Support Families,'' Journal of Policy Analysis 
and Management 32:4 (2013), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264476066_Discouraging_Disadvantaged_Fathers'_Employment_An_Unintende
d_Consequence_of_Policies_Designed_to_Support_Families. Kimberly 
Turner and Maureen Waller, ``Indebted Relationships: Child Support 
Arrears and Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with Children.'' 
Journal of Marriage and Family 79:1 (2017), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361.
    \22\ Freeman, Richard B. and Jane Waldfogel. ``Does Child 
Support Enforcement Policy Affect Male Labor Supply?'' in Fathers 
Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, eds. Irwin 
Garfinkel, Sara S. McLanahan, Daniel R. Meyer, and Judith A. 
Seltzer, New York: Russell Sage Foundation (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this research and evidence, OCSS has reconsidered its 
prior guidance. In doing so, we have not disregarded our previous 
interpretation of section 466(a)(15) of the Act, which provided the 
basis for the prior policy. Section 466(a)(15) neither authorizes nor 
prohibits the child support program from providing employment and 
training services under title IV-D, and is not the legal basis for the 
proposed rule. OCSS has determined, based on section 452(a)(1), that it 
is appropriate to establish a new standard authorizing employment and 
training services because the data and evidence now available lead us 
to conclude that this option is necessary to assure that State programs 
for obtaining child support will be effective. State expenses for 
providing these services under their IV-

[[Page 47112]]

D plan would, therefore, be eligible for FFP under section 455 of the 
Act. Since the rulemaking results in providing states the opportunity 
for federal funding, rather than eliminating or removing FFP, we assume 
that the rulemaking will not place states in a less favorable position 
to their detriment, but would provide a new and reliable source of 
funding for these services, which will in turn improve the 
effectiveness of state child support programs.

Relevant Studies of Employment and Training Services

    Since the 1990s, a significant body of research has examined the 
effectiveness of providing employment and training services to 
unemployed and underemployed parents who owe child support.\23\ The 
first large-scale effort was conducted by MDRC and was called Parents' 
Fair Share (PFS). PFS was first implemented as a pilot program in nine 
sites in 1992-1993, followed by a national random assignment 
demonstration implemented in seven sites in 1994-1996. More than 5,500 
noncustodial parents were randomly assigned to PFS or a control group 
during the national demonstration.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Employment and training programs for noncustodial parents 
described here were evaluated using one of three evaluation methods: 
evaluating the outcomes of individuals randomly assigned to the 
program (i.e. the treatment group) or receive business as usual 
(i.e. the control group), typically referred to as a random control 
trial (RCT) or an experimental evaluation; evaluating the outcomes 
of individuals who enrolled in the program compared to a group of 
individuals who did not enroll in the program but are similar to 
those who did enroll, referred to here as a semi-experimental 
evaluation; and evaluations that examine the outcomes of individuals 
who enrolled in the program, typically before and after they entered 
the program, which are often referred to as outcome evaluations. The 
first two evaluation methods are considered impact evaluations, 
which draw causal inferences, while the third evaluation method is 
not designed to attribute causality.
    \24\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFS demonstration gave participating courts and child support 
agencies the ability to refer noncustodial parents facing contempt for 
nonpayment of child support to the PFS program where they received the 
following four core services: employment and training services, 
enhanced child support services, peer support, and mediation. The 
employment and training services included job search assistance/job 
clubs, job development, classroom-based education and training, on-the-
job training, and job retention services. The enhanced child support 
services included assigning smaller caseloads to child support workers 
who handled PFS cases, expediting modification of child support orders, 
and offering flexible rules that allowed child support orders to be 
reduced while noncustodial parents participated in PFS. Peer support 
consisted of participating in a facilitated support group built around 
a responsible fatherhood curriculum developed by MDRC. The lead agency 
for these demonstration projects varied; only two were led by a local 
child support agency.
    The PFS demonstration found that PFS significantly increased the 
likelihood of paying child support during the two-year follow-up 
period. The average quarterly payment rate was 12 percent higher for 
parents who enrolled in PFS than those who did not.\25\ While the final 
PFS report did not examine the regularity of child support payments, 
the interim report did. It found that parents who enrolled in PFS 
during the first year of the demonstration were 19 percent more likely 
than the control group to pay child support in at least four of the six 
quarters during the 18-month follow-up period.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Ibid.
    \26\ Doolittle, Fred, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon 
Rowser, ``Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: 
Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents' Fair Share,'' New 
York: MDRC (1998), table 6.3, available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2000, a descriptive study conducted as part of the 
national evaluation of Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grant programs examined 
the strategies that 11 purposively selected WtW programs used to 
provide employment services to noncustodial parents. The study found 
that a variety of organizations can successfully operate employment and 
training programs for noncustodial parents.\27\ Eight of 11 programs 
partnered with the state or local child support agency. Child support 
agencies provided referrals, designated specific staff to work with the 
program, and offered flexible payment options and debt reduction 
options for participants. The principal employment services that all of 
the WtW programs provided were employability assessments, 
individualized employment plans, job search assistance, job readiness 
activities, job retention services, and assistance with transportation 
and work expenses. Some of the WtW programs also provided job 
development and placement services, on-the-job training, skills 
training, General Educational Development (GED) instruction, basic 
skills training, and work experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, and Debra Strong, ``Serving 
Noncustodial Parents: A Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work 
Programs,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (December 2000), 
available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/62761/410340-Serving-Noncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-of-Welfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One WtW program that served noncustodial parents was evaluated as 
part of the national evaluation of the WtW grants program.\28\ This 
program, called Support Has A Rewarding Effect (SHARE), operated in 
Yakima, Kittitas, and Klickitat counties in the State of Washington 
from July 1998 through September 2001. It was led by the Tri-County 
Workforce Development Council (WDC) and involved a strong collaboration 
among Tri-County WDC, the State's Division of Child Support (DCS), and 
the office of the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney (YCPA). SHARE 
provided the courts and YCPA the ability to offer WtW services to 
noncustodial parents during a child support contempt hearing. WtW 
services consisted of employability assessments, individualized 
employment plans, and other WtW services structured to meet the needs 
of the noncustodial parent. Job search workshops and referrals for job 
openings were the principal service offered, but noncustodial parents 
could be offered pre-employment education, vocational training, or on-
the-job training. After the noncustodial parent had secured a job, WtW 
case management continued for at least 90 days, during which time job 
retention services were provided. WtW funds were also available to help 
with work supports such as transportation, uniforms, work supplies, and 
other short-term emergency needs. The evaluation examined employment 
and child support payment trends for 574 noncustodial parents who were 
referred to the SHARE program. The evaluation found that the earnings 
and child support payments of noncustodial parents referred to SHARE 
increased substantially after being referred to the program.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Perez-Johnson, Irma, et al. (October 2003).
    \29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, OCSS launched an eight-state demonstration to test the 
effectiveness of fatherhood programs.\30\ The purpose of these programs 
was to assist unemployed or low-income noncustodial parents in paying 
their child support by improving their employment and earnings and 
encouraging more involved parenting. States were given wide latitude in 
program format, services provided, and client eligibility. Most states 
partnered with community-based organizations to lead the project and 
most projects offered employment services. The exact

[[Page 47113]]

package of employment services varied by project, but employment 
services across all projects included job search assistance, job 
readiness services, job development and placement, work supports, and 
vocational skills training and assessments. This demonstration was 
evaluated by comparing participant outcomes before and after enrollment 
in the program. The evaluation found that the percent of participants 
paying child support increased after enrollment in every participating 
state, by amounts ranging from 4 percent to 31 percent.\31\ The average 
amount of child support due that was paid also increased after 
enrollment in every participating state, by amounts ranging from 1 
percent to 16 percent.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (June 2000).
    \31\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (September 2003).
    \32\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2000, OCSS and the Ford Foundation launched a national 
demonstration called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF), which was 
conducted in 13 sites and ended in 2003.\33\ The goals of this 
demonstration were to promote voluntary paternity establishment; 
improve the parenting and relationship skills of young fathers; and 
help young fathers secure and retain employment. It targeted fathers 
between the ages of 16 and 25 years old who had not yet established 
paternity and did not have extensive involvement in the child support 
program. The lead agency in all 13 sites was a community-based 
organization, but each site partnered with the local child support 
agency and typically other organizations, such as workforce development 
agencies. The primary service consisted of a series of structured 
workshops on topics such as fatherhood, parenting, job readiness and 
job search, and child support. The exact package of employment services 
varied across projects, but the following employment services were 
offered across all projects: job readiness instruction, job search 
assistance, job referral and placement, job development, on-the-job 
training, GED classes, and job skills training. PFF enrolled over 1,470 
noncustodial parents.\34\ The evaluation of PFF examined child support 
outcomes of participants at the time of enrollment and over the next 
two years. It found that the percent of participants with child support 
orders increased from 14 percent to 35 percent during the first two 
years after program enrollment.\35\ It also found that the average 
number of months participants paid child support increased from 4.2 
months to 5.2 months, and the average annual amount of child support 
paid increased by 43 percent from $1,238 to $1,775 between the first 
and second year after enrollment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, 
Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burt S. Barnow, ``The Implementation of the 
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects,'' Washington, 
DC: The Urban Institute (June 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46576/411511-The-Implementation-of-the-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF.
    \34\ Ibid, Exhibit 2.1.
    \35\ Martinson, Karin, et al. (September 2007).
    \36\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney 
General of Texas and the Texas Workforce Commission established the 
Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices program.\37\ The goal of the program 
is to help parents make regular child support payments and become 
financially stable.\38\ This program remains in operation today and is 
currently operating in 21 of the 28 workforce development board areas 
in Texas.\39\ To be eligible to receive services, noncustodial parents 
must be court-ordered to participate. When a noncustodial parent enters 
the program, workforce development staff perform an assessment of needs 
and barriers and create an individual employment plan designed to move 
that individual into a stable employment situation. Additional 
employment and training services offered to noncustodial parents mirror 
those provided to TANF recipients under the Texas' Choices Program.\40\ 
The services emphasize Work First, providing job referrals and job 
search assistance, and may include job referrals and job development, 
support services, short-term training, subsidized employment/work 
experience, GED and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and job 
retention and career advancement assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \38\ Texas Workforce Commission, Noncustodial Parent Choices 
Program, available at https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/
noncustodial-parent-
choices#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20NCP%20Choices,Alamo.
    \39\ Ibid.
    \40\ https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NCP Choices was evaluated during the initial years of its 
operation.\41\ The impact evaluation was based on data from 2005 to 
2009 and ten local workforce development areas. It used a quasi-
experimental evaluation design.\42\ A total of 2,296 noncustodial 
parents who participated in NCP Choices were included in the 
evaluation. The evaluation found monthly child support collection rates 
among NCP Choices participants were 47 percent higher than the 
comparison group in the first year after program enrollment, and the 
amounts collected averaged $57 per month higher.\43\ In addition, those 
ordered into NCP Choices paid their child support 50 percent more 
consistently over time than the comparison group.\44\ All of these 
positive impacts continued well into the second through fourth years 
after program enrollment.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \42\ Quasi-experimental designs aim to assess causal 
relationships without using random assignment. When evaluating a 
program, they compare the group of individuals who participated in 
the program to a group of individuals who did not participate in the 
program who are as similar as possible to those who participated in 
the program in terms of pre-intervention characteristics. For 
further information, see Handley, Margaret A., Courtney Lyles, 
Charles McCulloch, and Adithya Cattamanchi, ``Selecting and 
Improving Quasi-Experimental Designs in Effectiveness and 
Implementation Research'' Annual Review of Public Health 39 (2018), 
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf.
    \43\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \44\ Ibid.
    \45\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the New York State Legislature enacted the Strengthening 
Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative, a pilot program to help 
low-income noncustodial parents find work and pay their child 
support.\46\ The legislation authorized funding for five programs to 
provide employment and other supportive services to low-income 
noncustodial parents, which operated from 2006 to 2009. Employment 
services offered by the five programs consisted of job search and 
placement assistance, job readiness training, job development, job 
skills training, and employment-related supports.\47\ One program 
provided subsidized employment and job retention and career enhancement 
services. The pilot programs served 3,668 noncustodial parents.\48\ The 
impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design. It found that 
Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers increased the percent 
of parents paying child support by 22 percent, and the amount of child 
support paid by 35 percent in the first year after enrollment compared 
to the comparison group.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Tannehill, Tess G., Carolyn T. O'Brien, and Elaine J. 
Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers 
Initiative: Process Evaluation Report,'' Washington, DC: Urban 
Institute (July 2009), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Report.PDF.
    \47\ Ibid.
    \48\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
    \49\ Ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47114]]

    In 2006, Maryland began the Noncustodial Parent Employment Program 
(NPEP), a joint effort of the Child Support Enforcement and Family 
Investment Administrations of the Maryland Department of Human 
Resources.\50\ The purpose of this program is to provide employment 
services to noncustodial parents who are behind in their child support 
so that they can be a reliable source of income for their children. 
NPEP was a statewide program in its initial years and still operates 
today, but not in all counties.\51\ During its initial phase, each NPEP 
program provided employment services similar to those offered during 
the WtW grants program. An evaluation of NPEP was conducted, which 
examined 3,900 noncustodial parents referred to NPEP in 2007 and 
2008.\52\ Outcomes for these participants were examined one year before 
and after enrollment. The evaluation found that the average amount of 
child support paid increased from $1,094 in the year prior to 
enrollment to $1,246 in the year after enrollment, a 14 percent 
increase.\53\ It also found that the average number of months that a 
participant paid child support rose from 3.7 months in the year prior 
to enrollment to 4.5 months in the year after enrollment, a 22 percent 
increase.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
    \51\ https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parent-employment-programs/
    \52\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
    \53\ Ibid.
    \54\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the Arapahoe County Division of Child Support Enforcement, 
the Arapahoe/Douglas Workforce Center, and the 18th Judicial District 
Court in Colorado established the Parents to Work program to secure 
jobs for unemployed and underemployed noncustodial parents and generate 
child support payments.\55\ The program is still in operation 
today.\56\ An evaluation of this program was conducted, which examined 
the first two years of operation. During that time the following 
employment services were offered: intensive job search assistance, job 
readiness training, job placement, job development, on-the-job 
training, work experience, occupational and vocational training, 
subsidized employment, pre-GED or GED preparation, and assistance with 
transportation, work clothes and tools. The evaluation examined the 
outcomes of participants one year before and after enrollment and 
compared them to a group of noncustodial parents who did not 
participate in Parents to Work.\57\ It found that the average 
percentage of child support due that was paid by the treatment group 
rose from 36.6 percent in the year prior to enrollment to 41.3 percent 
in the year following enrollment, but was approximately the same at 
both points in time for the comparison group.\58\ Payment regularity 
also improved significantly for the treatment group, rising from an 
average of 5.3 payments in the year prior to enrollment to 5.7 payments 
in the year following enrollment, but again payment regularity was 
about the same for the comparison group.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011).
    \56\ https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-to-work/.
    \57\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011). Parents to Work 
was intended to be evaluated using random assignment, but the 
treatment group was disproportionately selected from case worker and 
court referrals, while the comparison group was disproportionately 
selected from ad hoc reports. Because of this difference in 
procedures, the two groups were statistically significantly 
different prior to program entry. In an effort to offset this 
limitation, the study examined the outcomes of noncustodial parents 
in both groups after controlling for observed differences in pre-
program earnings, child support payments, and other characteristics. 
The sample size for the evaluation was 601 parents in the treatment 
group and 349 in the comparison group.
    \58\ Ibid.
    \59\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) was 
awarded a grant from OCSS to develop, implement, and evaluate a program 
providing employment, parenting time, and case management services to 
low[hyphen]income, unwed parents in the child support program in three 
Tennessee judicial districts. The program, called the Parent Support 
Program (PSP), placed child support staff known as Grant Program 
Coordinators in each of the three local child support offices to 
provide services to families. These staff were the primary providers of 
employment, parenting time, and case management services. The Grant 
Program Coordinators conducted a needs assessment at enrollment and 
developed a service plan for each participant. They also provided job 
search and job readiness assistance, job development, and financial 
assistance with work-related expenses. For other employment services, 
such as job training, participants were referred to other service 
providers. Enrollment began in January 2010 and ended in March 2013. 
During that time, PSP enrolled 1,016 noncustodial parents. The 
evaluation examined participant outcomes in the year before and after 
enrollment. The evaluation found that the average percentage of child 
support due that participants paid rose from 33 percent in the year 
prior to enrollment to 36 percent in the year after enrollment.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many more states than those discussed above have operated 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents, but they 
have not been able to use FFP to pay for these services. This has 
limited the potential impact and reach of these services. As of 
February 2014, 30 States and the District of Columbia were operating 77 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents with active 
child support agency involvement. Three of these states were operating 
statewide programs--Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota. But only a few 
of these programs have been able to secure resource commitments to fund 
these services in an ongoing, consistent or statewide basis. As a 
result, many programs that were operating in 2014 are no longer in 
operation. Other programs have had to scale back because of reduced 
funding. Nonetheless, because of the continued work of child support 
agencies, many new programs have emerged so that there are roughly the 
same number of states that have employment and training programs for 
noncustodial parents with active child support agency involvement as in 
2014.
    Informed by the child support program's positive experience with 
providing employment and training programs, and the positive outcomes 
of three decades of national demonstrations and state evaluations, OCSS 
now proposes to allow states to access FFP for these services and 
establish standards and requirements for states when opting to provide 
federally assisted employment and training services under their IV-D 
State plans. This proposed rule would provide additional stability and 
support for states to increase the effectiveness of their respective 
programs for collecting child support payments.

Further Studies in Support of the Proposed Rulemaking

    OCSS previously issued an NPRM on November 17, 2014 that included 
regulatory changes similar to those being proposed here. 79 FR 68547, 
68556 (November 17, 2014). While this proposed rule received 
overwhelming support from states, many Members of Congress, and the 
public, it was not included in the final rule issued on December 20, 
2016 in order to allow for further study. The final rule stated, 
``While we appreciate the support the commenters expressed, we think 
allowing for federal IV-D

[[Page 47115]]

reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe 
for implementation at a later time.'' 81 FR 93492, 93496 (December 20, 
2016).
    Since 2016, findings from three new national demonstrations that 
offered employment and training services to noncustodial parents have 
been released. They are the Child Support National Parent Employment 
Demonstration (CSPED), Enhanced Traditional Jobs Demonstration (ETJD), 
and Families Forward Demonstration (FFD). These three demonstrations 
added considerably to OCSS's understanding of the effectiveness of 
employment programs for noncustodial parents and further informed the 
development of this NPRM.

Child Support National Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)

    CSPED was a randomized control trial (RCT) demonstration designed 
to test the effectiveness of child support-led employment programs for 
noncustodial parents. It was funded by OCSS, which awarded 
demonstration grants to eight state child support agencies in 2012. 
These child support agencies operated employment programs for 
noncustodial parents in 18 local jurisdictions from 2013 to 2017. A 
total of 10,173 noncustodial parents enrolled in the demonstration.\61\ 
CSPED was able to reach such a large number of noncustodial parents in 
part because it recruited noncustodial parents administratively as well 
as during contempt hearings. Key services included employment services, 
enhanced child support services, and parenting classes. Employment 
services consisted of one-on-one job counseling, job search assistance, 
job readiness training, and job placement and retention services. 
Programs were encouraged to offer short-term job skills training and 
vocational educational training, but not required to do so. Enhanced 
child support services were expected to include initiating order 
modifications if needed, removing license suspensions and holding other 
enforcement remedies in abeyance while parents participated in the 
program, and reducing state-owed arrears if permitted by state law.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Wood, ``Final 
Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent 
Employment Demonstration,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on 
Poverty (March 2019), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_report.pdf.
    \62\ Office of Child Support Enforcement, ``National Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Projects,'' 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, HHS-2012-ACF-OCSE-FD-0297 
(2012), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_csped.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSPED increased the effectiveness of the child support program by 
increasing noncustodial parents' employment and earnings as measured by 
quarterly earnings, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of paying 
child support through wage withholding. Specifically, it increased 
participants' employment rate by 3 percent during the first 2 years 
after enrollment, and increased their earnings by 4 percent during the 
first year after enrollment, both of which are measured using quarterly 
earnings.\63\ This, in turn, increased the likelihood of participants 
paying child support through income withholding by 8 percent during the 
first year after enrollment.\64\ It also increased noncustodial 
parents' satisfaction with the child support program, increased 
noncustodial parent-child contact, and improved noncustodial parents' 
attitudes about responsibility for children, all of which contributed 
to an improved image of the child support program and helped overcome 
significant distrust among noncustodial parents, paving the way for 
better communication, more cooperation, and a more effective child 
support program.\65\ Finally, a benefit-cost analysis of CSPED found 
that the benefits of CSPED outweighed its costs within two years when 
the costs of employment and parenting services received by members of 
the regular-services group were taken into account.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Sorensen, Elaine (November 2020).
    \64\ Ibid. While CSPED was successful at increasing the 
likelihood of paying child support through income withholding, it 
did not increase the amount of child support paid. As noted in the 
text, CSPED provided both employment and enhanced child support 
services. It appears that these services worked at cross-purposes to 
one another. As part of enhanced child support services, child 
support agencies offered order modification services to 
participants, which reduced their average amount of child support 
orders. Reducing child support orders will necessarily reduce income 
withholding orders, which reduces the amount of child support paid 
since most child support is paid via income withholding. In 
contrast, employment services are designed to increase the 
employment and earnings of noncustodial parents, which, in turn, are 
expected to increase child support payments. Thus, it appears that 
one service reduced the amount of child support paid while the other 
increased it, resulting in no impact on the amount of child support 
paid.
    \65\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019).
    \66\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G. Wood, 
``Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results from the National Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration,'' Journal of 
Policy Analysis and Management. 41:2 (2022), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enhanced Traditional Jobs Demonstration

    ETJD was a RCT demonstration designed to test the effectiveness of 
providing temporary subsidized jobs and other enhanced services. It was 
funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of 
Planning, Research, and Evaluation within the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. DOL 
awarded seven demonstration grants, four of which targeted noncustodial 
parents and three of which targeted formerly incarcerated individuals. 
The demonstration operated from 2011 to 2014 and enrolled a total of 
4,000 individuals in the four demonstrations that targeted noncustodial 
parents. Key services in the noncustodial parent demonstration sites 
included up to four months of subsidized employment, other employment 
services, and child support-related assistance.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom, ``The Enhanced 
Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and Early Impacts of 
the Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs,'' New York: 
MDRC (November 2016), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_2016_FR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ETJD showed that providing subsidized employment to noncustodial 
parents successfully increased their employment and earnings in the 
final year of the 30-month follow-up period, well after the subsidized 
employment ended. During this period, noncustodial parents who received 
ETJD services were 7 percent more likely to be employed, and their 
earnings were 13 percent higher than the noncustodial parents who did 
not receive ETJD services.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell, 
Dan Bloom, ``New Perspectives on Creating Jobs: Final Impacts of the 
Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs,'' New York: MDRC 
(May 2018), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ETJD also successfully increased the likelihood of noncustodial 
parents paying child support and the average number of months of paying 
child support during the final year of the 30-month follow-up period. 
During this period, noncustodial parents who received ETJD services 
were 11 percent more likely to pay child support, and the average 
number of months of paying child support was 16 percent higher than 
noncustodial parents who did not receive ETJD services.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Barden, Bret, et al. (May 2018). ETJD did not increase the 
amount of child support paid in the final year of the follow-up 
period. This is likely because local child support agencies in three 
of the four ETJD sites initiated order modifications if needed as an 
enhanced child support service to address the possibility that 
orders were too high relative to participants' ability to pay. If 
orders are reduced, income withholding orders will be lower and the 
amount of child support withheld will be lower. Thus, the amount of 
child support paid will not necessarily increase as a result of 
increased earnings if orders are modified downward. Only one ETJD 
site did not offer to initiate order modifications and that was the 
only site that saw a statistically significant increase in the 
amount of child support paid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47116]]

Families Forward Demonstration

    FFD was designed to test the effectiveness of offering free 
occupational training to increase reliable child support payments. It 
operated in five locations from 2018 to 2020 and enrolled 761 
noncustodial parents. FFD was funded through a grant from the W. K. 
Kellogg Foundation, local funding raised by participating child support 
agencies, and matching federal funds through Section 1115 Waivers 
approved by the Office of Child Support Services.\70\ FFD provided the 
following three services: free occupational training, other employment 
services and wraparound supports, and responsive child support 
services. Free occupational training targeted demand-driven 
occupations, which varied by location. Other employment services 
focused on job search and placement assistance and career planning. The 
most common wraparound supports were work-related, such as assistance 
with work-related transportation costs or other work-related expenses. 
Responsive child support services included child support navigation, 
arrears compromise programs, order modification if needed, and 
suspension of enforcement action.\71\ The evaluation of this 
demonstration consisted of an implementation study and an analysis of 
child support outcomes for program participants prior to and after 
program enrollment.\72\ It found that the trends in child support 
payments for noncustodial parent participants improved relative to 
their pre-enrollment trends.\73\ While this study was not designed to 
attribute causality, these findings suggest that offering free training 
to noncustodial parents may have a positive impact on child support 
payments, providing further evidence that offering training services to 
noncustodial parents holds promise for increasing the effectiveness of 
the child support program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The FFD program in New York was additionally supported by 
the Robin Hood Foundation.
    \71\ Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021).
    \72\ Ibid.
    \73\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results from these recent demonstrations, in addition to the large 
body of evidence that preceded these demonstrations, provide support 
for OCSS's determination that permitting states to provide employment 
and training services to noncustodial parents can increase the 
effectiveness of the child support program. By allowing states to use 
FFP to provide employment and training services, OCSS aims to create a 
reliable funding source for states that choose these services to 
supplement traditional enforcement tools and effectively obtain child 
support.

Section-by-Section Discussion of the Provisions of This Proposed Rule

    This NPRM proposes to allow FFP for certain optional and 
nonduplicative employment and training services designed to supplement 
traditional enforcement tools and to help noncustodial parents find and 
retain employment so they can support their children.

Sec.  302.76 Employment and Training Services

    We propose to add a new optional State plan provision at Sec.  
302.76, Employment and Training Services. The proposal permits states 
to provide certain employment and training services to eligible 
noncustodial parents pursuant to Sec.  303.6(c)(5).
    We propose to limit eligibility to noncustodial parents who have an 
open IV-D case; have a current child support order or be determined by 
the IV-D agency to be fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to 
establish a current child support order; are unemployed or 
underemployed or at risk of not being able to comply with their current 
support order; and are not receiving the same employment and training 
service under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (45 CFR 
part 261), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and 
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR 
part 690), the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training 
programs authorized under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (20 CFR parts 675-688), the Adult Education and Family 
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or the Vocational 
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). States may add additional 
eligibility criteria. We invite comment on these proposed eligibility 
criteria.
    We acknowledge the benefits of improved coordination between the 
various Federal programs that are eligible to provide employment and 
training services. We encourage states to establish a coordinated, 
nonduplicative set of employment and training services with other 
federally-funded programs.
    The primary goal of offering employment and training services is to 
increase the consistency of current support payments to families with 
minor children. Thus, the proposed rule does not allow noncustodial 
parents with arrears-only cases to be eligible to receive employment 
and training services as a reimbursable IV-D cost when no current 
support obligation exists or is being established.
    We propose that allowable employment and training services are 
limited to:
    (i) Job search assistance;
    (ii) Job readiness training;
    (iii) Job development and job placement services;
    (iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
    (v) Job retention services;
    (vi) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, 
and tools; and
    (vii) Occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve 
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or 
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language, 
as long as they are included in the same employment and training 
services plan.
    We recognize that providing these services will require case 
management. Thus, FFP may also be used to provide case management for 
these allowable services. FFP may not be used for subsidized employment 
or to provide to the noncustodial parent cash payments, checks, 
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally 
converted to currency. For example, FFP may not be used to provide 
financial incentive payments to noncustodial parents, or to directly 
reimburse noncustodial parents for employment and training related 
expenditures. Allowable services must be secured through service 
providers as opposed to allowing reimbursement to parents.
    We have included a focused set of employment and training services 
because our review of research found that employment and training 
programs for noncustodial programs tend to provide a package of 
employment and training services in their effort to improve the 
effectiveness of child support program. The list of proposed allowable 
services includes those services that were most frequently provided in 
various demonstrations, research evaluations, and state-based

[[Page 47117]]

programs detailed in the proposed rule. We invite comment on the list 
of proposed allowable employment and training services.
    We suggest that child support agencies should partner wherever 
possible with existing employment and training providers and that child 
support agencies especially should not try to carry out job development 
on their own and should consider doing so through or in partnership 
with the local American Job Center business services representatives.
    We have included work supports and job retention services as 
allowable expenditures because, as described above, many of the 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that have 
been evaluated included these services as part of a package of 
employment and training services, which were found effective at 
improving child support outcomes. Work supports consist of costs 
incurred for bona fide services and assistance provided to noncustodial 
parents so that they may find and retain employment or participate in 
employment and training services. For example, a common form of work 
supports is transportation assistance, such as bus tokens and gas 
vouchers. Work supports may also include the cost of providing 
emergency child care assistance for children on the child support case 
associated with the noncustodial parent receiving employment and 
training services if that emergency inhibits participation in 
employment and training services or finding or retaining work.\74\ Job 
retention services are services that assist a job holder with retaining 
employment and can include regular check-ins with job holders as well 
as supporting managers who hired job holders with on-the-job issues. 
Job retention services can be offered directly to the job holder or to 
the employer to serve the job holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Other eligible work supports may include, but are not 
limited to: costs incurred for bona fide services and assistance 
such as work-related tools; work-related clothing or unforms; 
transportation and travel to or from training and work sites; 
emergency vehicle repairs if affordable transportation alternatives 
are not available; referrals for child care assistance; referrals to 
health care, mental health counseling or drug treatment; licenses; 
application fees; and other costs of employment and training tests 
or certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose that this State plan provision be optional to states 
since offering employment and training services may increase state 
costs. If the state chooses this option, this proposal will require 
that the State plan include a description of the employment and 
training services and eligibility criteria. It will also require that 
the State plan include an explanation of how the child support program 
is establishing a coordinated, nonduplicative set of employment and 
training services with other federally-funded programs. It will also 
require that states comply with future reporting requirements 
prescribed by the Office.

Sec.  303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations

    We propose to redesignate existing paragraph Sec.  303.6(c)(5) as 
new paragraph Sec.  303.6(c)(6) and to add new paragraph Sec.  
303.6(c)(5) to provide program standards related to the proposed 
optional State plan provision Sec.  302.76, Employment and Training 
Services. Additionally, we propose that funds can only be used for a 
limited set of employment and training services which complement, not 
duplicate, the services a noncustodial parent may be receiving from 
another federally-funded program. OCSS remains diligent in efforts to 
not duplicate services provided to noncustodial parents under other 
federally-funded programs. Because IV-D funds can only be used for a 
limited set of employment and training services, OCSS will encourage 
states to use other funding to pay for services that are not eligible 
for IV-D funds and combine those services with IV-D funded services to 
address the multiple barriers to employment that low-income 
noncustodial parents often face.
    The proposed language allows flexibility for states to coordinate 
with other programs to ensure that IV-D funds are used effectively to 
help noncustodial parents obtain and maintain employment to support 
their children, while avoiding duplicating services. Partnering with 
other programs can allow child support programs to broaden the types of 
services they provide to noncustodial parents in their caseload. For 
example, if a noncustodial parent is currently enrolled in a high 
school equivalency certificate program or any service already being 
provided to the noncustodial parent that is being paid for by another 
federal funding source, IV-D funds would not be available for this same 
service, but would be available for non-duplicative services, such as 
job search assistance, provided a noncustodial parent is not receiving 
that service from any of the federal funding sources detailed in the 
proposed amendments to 303.6 and 302.76.
    States are strongly encouraged to maximize coordination to ensure 
effective service delivery and to provide the most appropriate mix of 
services that address the multiple barriers to employment that low-
income noncustodial parents often face while minimizing costs to the 
child support program. In particular, we strongly encourage 
coordination with the six core programs providing services through 
state workforce development systems established under the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to make the most appropriate use 
of federal funds. Furthermore, we strongly encourage states to 
coordinate with high-quality training programs and other evidence-based 
training models shown to lead to sustained earnings gains--to increase 
noncustodial parents' ability to meet their financial obligations to 
their children. Noncustodial parents who receive Pell Grants may use 
those funds, to the extent permissible by the Higher Education Act of 
1965, to pay for some of the same eligible employment and training 
services that state child support programs can provide under this NPRM. 
Therefore, we will encourage states to communicate with noncustodial 
parents concerning Pell Grants and ensure non-duplication of any 
employment and training services attained with Pell Grant funds. OCSS's 
policy goals are to make it possible for state child support agencies 
to provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents who 
need them but are not being provided such services by other federally-
funded programs.
    OCSS anticipates that many state child support agencies will 
purchase employment and training services by entering into contracts 
with public, private and community-based employment, fatherhood, and 
community re-entry programs, community action agencies, community 
colleges, or other service providers, rather than offer these services 
in-house, in accordance with 45 CFR 304.22, Federal financial 
participation in purchased support enforcement services. Child support 
agencies may also access employment and training services by partnering 
with labor organizations. However, this does not preclude a child 
support agency from providing employment and training services to 
noncustodial parents directly. In addition, OCSS encourages child 
support agencies to develop and maintain partnerships with TANF, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, workforce agencies, 
workforce development boards, and American Job Centers to offer 
available employment and training services to noncustodial parents 
whenever those resources are available. We also encourage state child 
support agencies to partner with other

[[Page 47118]]

organizations that can offer additional employment and training 
activities beyond those funded under title IV-D, such as Vocational 
Rehabilitation agencies for those noncustodial parents who are 
individuals with disabilities and are eligible for the Vocational 
Rehabilitation program.
    We do not want states to duplicate other services, but we also do 
not want to make it impossible for states to provide employment and 
training services due to the unavailability of data needed to verify 
that such services are not being duplicated. Thus, child support 
programs will make individual determinations about whether a 
noncustodial parent is receiving the same employment and training 
services from other programs. To ensure the eligibility criterion is 
met, the child support program may obtain an attestation from the 
noncustodial parent that the parent is not receiving the same 
employment and training services under the federal programs listed in 
Sec.  303.6(c)(5). This will allow a noncustodial parent getting some 
services from the American Job Center to also receive nonduplicated 
employment and training services through the child support program.

Sec.  304.20 Availability and Rate of Federal Financial Participation

    We propose to redesignate existing paragraph Sec.  
304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new paragraph Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(viii), and to add 
new paragraph Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(vii) allowing FFP for certain 
employment and training services when they are provided in accordance 
with Sec.  303.6(c)(5).

Effective Dates

    The proposed effective date will be 60 days from the date of 
publication of the final rule.

Impact Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments 
are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. There 
is one new State plan reporting requirement because of this proposed 
rule for states that implement the optional and nonduplicative 
employment and training services. The description and total estimated 
burden on the ``State Plan for Child Support Collection and 
Establishment of Paternity Under Title IV-D of the Social Security 
Act,'' and the State Plan Transmittal Form [OMB 0970-0017] are 
described in the chart below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Average burden hour                      National     National State
        Section and purpose                Instrument       Number of respondents       per response        Total cost     Federal share       share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec.      State plan amendment.  One time for 33        3 hours x $66.82 x 33       $6,615.18       $4,366.02       $2,249.16
 302.76 Employment and training                              states.                states.
 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A state may submit a plan amendment for the optional and 
nonduplicative employment and training services at any time after the 
proposed rule becomes final. But not all states will implement these 
optional services. Out of the 54 states, we estimate 33 will eventually 
submit plan amendments for these optional services. Additionally, we 
estimate that states will take 3 hours to draft the required 
information to amend their State plans. The cost to respondents was 
calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics job code for State 
Government Management Analyst [13-1111] and wage data from May 2021, 
which is $33.41 per hour. To account for fringe benefits and overhead, 
the rate was multiplied by two, which is $66.82. The total estimated 
cost is $6,615.18 with a state share of $2,249.16. OCSS reimburses 
states for 66 percent of the administrative costs incurred to 
administer the State plan.
    ACF will consider comments by the public on this proposed 
collection of information in the following areas:
    1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the 
information will have practical utility;
    2. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimates of the proposed 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used;
    3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    4. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed regulations within 60 days 
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Written 
comments to OMB for the proposed information collection should be sent 
directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by email to 
[email protected]. Please mark faxes and emails to the 
attention of the desk officer for ACF.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if 
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize 
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public 
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive 
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This rule meets the standards of Executive Order 13563 
because providing employment training and services benefits the public, 
particularly children and families whose economic security would be 
improved by increasing family income and improving financial stability. 
These services help to reduce the need for and cost of providing public 
assistance. This proposed rule was designated by OMB as a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094. If finalized, the rule would not result in economic 
impacts that exceed the monetary threshold in section 3(f)(1) of 
Executive Order 12866 (as amended).
    The estimated fiscal impact of allowing child support programs to 
use FFP for employment and training services would result in an 
increase of $15.5 million in federal expenditures during FY 2025, the 
anticipated first fiscal year of implementation. As more child support 
programs use this authority, the estimated fiscal impact will increase. 
By FY 2034, the estimated

[[Page 47119]]

fiscal impact is expected to be $75.9 million per budget year. These 
estimates do not reflect the potential benefits to the Federal 
Government of implementing this program, such as reducing the cost of 
providing child support enforcement services and reducing reliance on 
means-tested programs; they only reflect the estimated cost of 
providing employment and training services to noncustodial parents.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary proposes to certify that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as 
enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this 
proposed rule, if finalized, will not result in a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on state 
governments. State governments are not considered small entities under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits 
before issuing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by 
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $177 
million. This rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or 
tribal governments, or the private sector, that will exceed this 
threshold in any year.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed 
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's 
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact 
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. We certify 
that we have assessed this proposed rule's impact on the well-being of 
families. This proposed rule will have a positive impact on family 
well-being as defined in the legislation by proposing evidence-informed 
policies and practices that help to ensure that noncustodial parents 
support their children more consistently and reliably.

Congressional Review

    This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. 
Chapter 8.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule 
that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not 
required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency 
meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism impacts as defined 
in the Executive Order 13132.

    Jeff Hild, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the 
Administration for Children and Families, performing the delegable 
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, approved 
this document on April 24, 2024.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 302

    Child support, State plan requirements.

45 CFR Part 303

    Child Support, Standards for program operations

45 CFR Part 304

    Child support, Federal financial participation

    Dated: May 24, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health 
and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR parts 302, 303, and 304 as 
set forth below:

PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

0
2. Section 302.76 is added to read as follows:


Sec.  302.76   Employment and training services

    The State plan may provide for employment and training services for 
eligible noncustodial parents in accordance with Sec.  303.6(c)(5) of 
this chapter. If the state chooses this option, the State plan must 
include a description of the employment and training services and the 
eligibility criteria. In addition, the State plan must explain how the 
IV-D agency is coordinating with the state agencies administering the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) (45 CFR part 
261), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and 
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), and the six core programs of 
the state's workforce development system established under the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), to ensure the 
noncustodial parent is receiving well-coordinated employment and 
training services across these programs and systems, and that services 
are not being duplicated. States electing the option must comply with 
future reporting requirements prescribed by the Office.

PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 
667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), 1396(k), 
and 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) and 1621e.

0
4. Amend Sec.  303.6 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(6); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  303.6   Enforcement of support obligations

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) As elected by the state in Sec.  302.76 of this chapter, 
provide employment and training services to eligible noncustodial 
parents. In addition to eligibility criteria that may be set by the IV-
D agency, the noncustodial parent must: have an open IV-D case; have a 
current child support order or be determined by the IV-D agency to be 
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a current child 
support order; be unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being 
able to comply with their current support order; and not be receiving 
the same employment and training services under the Temporary 
Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) (45 CFR part 261), 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training 
program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR part 690), 
the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training programs 
authorized under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act (20 CFR parts 675-688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 
(AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or the State Vocational 
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361).

[[Page 47120]]

    These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited to:
    (i) Job search assistance;
    (ii) Job readiness training;
    (iii) Job development and job placement services;
    (iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
    (v) Job retention services;
    (vi) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, 
and tools; and
    (vii) Occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve 
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or 
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language, 
as long as they are included in the same employment and training 
services plan.
    Federal financial participation may also be used to provide case 
management in connection with these allowable services. Federal 
financial participation is not available for cash payments, checks, 
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally 
converted to currency.
* * * * *

PART 304--FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION

0
5. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

0
6. Amend Sec.  304.20 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii) as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(vii).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  304.20   Availability and rate of Federal financial participation

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vii) Employment and training services activities in accordance 
with Sec.  303.6(c)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-11842 Filed 5-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-41-P